Product Details
Gripping, thought-provoking and deeply rewarding, 12 Rules for Life offers an antidote to the chaos in our lives: eternal truths applied to our modern problems.
12 Rules for Life $12 @ Target, Target and Amazon AU Prime
2860
Related Stores
closed Comments
he's been laughed out of academia
looks like you've been laughed out of OzBargain
Laughed out by academia is the single biggest compliment someone could receive today. Considering that academia bats at an appallingly low average. Peterson was earning at one point about $50000 a month from his Patreon alone. Why anyone would ever go near near the stench of contemporary academia on that kind of money is beyond me. BTW - psychology is voodoo.
Jungian Archetypal stories appeal to the masses, but are not regarded highly in Psychology.
Quotations from the Bible appeal to many conservative readers. Many who fear "chaos" love this.
I find the appeal to maintain the traditional status quo, not to allow challenges as worrying.
this book is his other work, talking more about personal development
There is a big difference between being a psychologist who is followed online & has best selling books (as this influencer is), & an influential psychologist - one who is influential among psychologists (which isn't the case)!
There have been & are many influential people - online or with books published. But that does not make what they present best for any individual.
However it is easier for the group if similar rules are followed… (this usually works well in families & relationships, until you meet others with different rules or customs…)
eg driving on 1 side of the road is safest for all - but necessary to break when overtaking! All of us having the same rules - maybe not so good as cults operate that way.Rule breaking mavericks are often the basis of change in a culture😉
Rules tend to decrease stresses for many. Unfortunately some become obsessed with following rules.
It's better to have some flexibility & break rules where needed. Rules are handy like trainer wheels for a child learning to ride a bike, but many should be discarded as experience in life is gained & adult choices made - to be fully human!The basis of successfully help books is to tell people what they want to hear, & what they already believe, just package it differently. It's reassuring & seems obvious when they are told it. Readers love it.
Challenging the reader causes them discomfort, but that may lead to breakthroughs to a better life - often a therapeutic approach, but not the path to a best seller.
Boiling it down to rules for easy consumption is good for sales & marketing. However that isn't necessarily best for the individual.
In the book he does challenge the reader quite a bit. I’d recommend it.
Good to see, but some people are challenged by simple things😉 It depends where you are along the personal development path I guess.
In a therapeutic process, the challenges are much more directed to changing & developing the individual, as they require.
But that's not possible in a book directed at a general audience[As soon as there's a RULE - I take delight in breaking it. There is usually a lot to learn about yourself & the group from that approach.
(I was put in the penalty box in my first months on OzBargain, for challenging a decision by a Mod. Received my first Badge - Commentator for that too!)]Sometimes rules have their place.
Other times going beyond rules can bring positive change for the individual & group.@Shick: Peterson's a tosser, but this particular book seems to be pretty unexciting and standard advice - the book is popular with his adherents because of his other positions, and unpopular with his detractors for the same reasons
If the book was considered only on its own merits then it would be totally unexceptional and unworthy of any comment.
@Shick: Read the book… You haven't read the book… Infidel is an… INFIDEL!😀
Sounds a bit like a cult! No other views are acceptable😱
(The author of "The Barefoot Inverter" describes his book & it's devotees as a cult😉 That does not deny there is good advice. I've got a copy.)Your experience seems to be what you read from a book.
My comments draw on a broad range of experiences - not just my years assisting in the development of my successful clients (eg Minister of Government, people from sports, arts, academia), learning from their amazing experiences, training under very experienced & talented professionals in the area, studies & work with universities, living & learning with different cultures, etc. I'm always learning & changing.
It taught me there are no real Rules. They are an illusion created to simplify our lives. [Unfortunately, Rules are also beloved by Fundamentalists of all beliefs - we know where that extreme love of Rules can lead!]
There is a lot to be learnt from those who break so called Rules. Many emerging businesses rely on breaking Rules. What was against the Rules a few years ago may be accepted (by most) now.Rules imply an imbalance of power - often given to children to keep them safe, as they lack experience.
As we gain life experience, rules necessarily give way to informed choices.Some adults still cling to the certainly & simplicity of Rules. Rules mean you don't need to think & decide as much. But it limits us & our perception of the world. Rules are what some people want to give an illusion of safety in changing times.
A therapist training me said "You know you can kill…". She wasn't suggesting I should do that, just challenging my strongly held views / Rules against violence. That simple statement challenged years of unquestioned belief! But I still haven't killed anyone😉
Accepting that there are a range of possibilities (some yet unknown to us), we are freed to make our choices best suited to an understanding of ourselves & others, as adults. It is a responsibility!
Of course many would find Rules reassuring. Importantly it makes decisions easier. A quantum physicist described a Sharman ritual experience as seeing the almost infinite possibilities in every decision. But we almost always choose the same path from A to B, as we know it well. But those well worn ruts are very limiting.
The 'rules' in this book are pretty basic guidelines. My old Grandmother used to mumble similar advice.
(But the publisher would have preferred the authority conveyed by the word Rules over Guidelines on the cover - to sell more books & make more $😉 No one pays for Guidelines.)End Of Rant😀
@INFIDEL: Of course the type of Rules I break are the type of social norms listed as Rules in this book - like "Sit up straight".
In the example above, the Mod made a biased & incorrect decision against others, I called the Mod on it & was penalised, but later rewarded with a Badge. It taught me a lot about OzBargain (inconsistencies).
Volunteering in a Myanmar village, a girl gave me a flower. For fun I put it behind my ear. She laughed. But locals had a very strong reaction, so I removed it. From that experience, I learnt so much about the very strict gender roles of the people. Only women can wear flowers! The custom was certainly not listed in the guidebooks. It helped me better understand & work with the locals.
Group behaviour is fascinating😉
Why say in ten words what you can say in two hundred, right?
To do that is very JBP. And add lots of hand jive.
@llgemo : maybe give him a try, yes left wing academia might be deeply offended by him, I would not be surprised, might be not everybody's cup of tea, but I found his personal development ideas quite fool-proof and helpful; helped many people ;source: I am a doctor
I'm a leftie and I'm honestly puzzled why anyone would be offended by him. Most of what he says is just common sense. I would consider him a moderate with classical liberal leanings and I find his lectures and philosophy agreeable.
well said
The only thing that offends me about him is his complete lack of understanding of Evolutionary Biology. Beyond that I couldn't care less, but I really wish he would properly study the nonsense he decided to spout on that.
Just because his self help material is good doesn't mean he has the authority to talk on "common sense" in which he has no background in. When you keep saying common sense like "women's bodies are more suited for child rearing" you suddenly get an audience of people who think "hey, maybe all women shouldn't be in the workplace but at home taking care of their children" and take no responsibility for it you're kind of an hatemonger.
Exactly. Pretty much like being photographed with his arm around someone wearing a shirt that said "I'm a proud Islamaphobe[sic]".
In that situation there are generally two choices. Either you say "I'm all for free speech but I'm going to use mine to say that I don't agree with the sentiment expressed on that man's shirt", or you say "I'm all for free speech and I broadly agree with the statement".
If you're Jordan Peterson, you have a bet both ways and say that you have a “strong belief that people should be allowed to express themselves as they see fit and I haven’t invoked a dress code at my lectures”. Then add that you have asked the company which handles the photos at your events to ensure that those pictured with you “refrain from more provocative political garb, given that the fallout can be used by those who are not fond of me (a serious understatement) to capitalise on the opportunity the photos provide”.
So yeah, the guy stands for nothing but loves whipping up controversy. It's all waffle and hot air with no substance that can be scrutinised.
@Pantagonist: "I can see how all my ideas may lead to racist sentiments that most racists would agree with but I never said that I'm racist so I'm obviously not a racist and why are you attacking me instead of the real racists"
Dr Peterson has probably has had more YouTube views than any other entity. I love watching him debating with others. Find him to be brilliant and humble. His rules are mostly common sense but it’s good to be reminded of them. I guess to some people they are a revelation so it’s great that he does what he does. In such a toxic world, it’s beneficial to be reminded to surround ourselves with people who truly want the best for us and also to treat ourselves well. It’s amazing how popular his religious lectures are. I find it heartening that so many people are interested in intellectual discussion in today’s material world. I commend this book and dr Peterson’s lectures. Haters gonna hate however.
Bravo, sir!
This reads like something that an adherent of Scientology or a long-term participant in Landmark would write.
"Dr Peterson has probably has had more YouTube views than any other entity“
[credibility_test]
VIDEO VIEW Rank: 31,937th
[/credibility_test]
Rule 13: thou shalt not exchange money for drivel
though shalt source popular ebooks for free
Thanks saved me going all the way to Kmart
Should be 14 rules for $14
The going price is $1 per rule
My homeboy is going to make the front page
No. I'm fairly sure the Guardian is a pseudo source of news though.
They referenced a psychological study.. Lol
Sigh, outta negs before I got to you.
No it isn't, Guardian is one of the most reliable news sources in the world, along with NY Times etc.
I think people like you produce fake news and believe in fake news, people like you watch Fox news.Lol nice sarcasm. The NYT is a joke. Two words Sarah Jeong. Nobody in Australia watches Fox News.
@twjr: Thats what the mainstream media says to try and stop Fox News reporting the truth.
What if they are wrong?
@spaceflight: Ah, not serious then.
Edit:
or so serious that they can't see the forest for the trees. These days it's hard to tell.
@Dentshop: One person makes a whole news outlet a joke? Also, what's wrong with Sarah Jeong? Can only white men be sexist racists?
@twjr: I forgot Paul Krugman, Nicholas Kristof and David Brooks. There you go - it's like a clown car opening its doors. Not sure about the last sentence you wrote, I'll wait for your opinion on the matter first.
@twjr: They are consistently wrong on major issues, they have no idea how people live outside of their elitist bubble. Russian collusion? Iraq WMD? Trump no chance of winning? You're right though - it isn't comical, it is shocking what they are allowed to get away with. Read this hysterical person - openly calling for terrorism against Federal workers enforcing the laws of the US. I am cynical I know but if you trust anything coming out of the mainstream media today, you're an absolute duffer. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/opinion/immigration-child…
That said, I adore Will Shortz's crossword and used to buy the Times while living o/s just to do the crossword on the train.
Like any social science, there is a lot of unreproducable BS being published.
But this is not a science text.And Peterson is more a clinical psychologist and teacher than a scientist or researcher.
The book is lightweight and easy to read, unlike Peterson's previous weighty tome "Maps of Meaning".It is equal parts common sense, and thought provoking, written in a very entertaining style.
Definitely not a psychology text, and not a conventional self-help book either. Well worth a read.
I find that putting social in front of a word generally reverses the second word’s meaning. Try it:
Social science: is not like reproducible physical sciences.
Social justice: is more like what used to be called mercy. Justice is when you got what you deserve, mercy or social justice is what you get because people are kind
Social licence: you can comply with every regulation and approval process under the sun, but 8f some activist doesn’t like it, well then tough.
Social studies:. Well, quite so. The most useless qualification on the planet
Social worker:. Heh. At least at Mrs Entropy’s workplace my rule applies.
Replicability is a basic requirement for scientific research. Fortunately, science is open to challenges & change. Individual researchers may not be so pleased with challenge!
Yes, psychological research has failed in many cases. But that does not relegate the field of psychology to be a pseudo-science. (Freud & Jung's theories were once popular, but are no longer seen as valid. It wasn't based on research, just interpretation of personal observations.) The reseach requires better methods & better peer review.
Have conducted psych experiments - it is a lot harder to design than in the hard sciences (my original field) as there are far more variables, confounds & unknowns to consider. People are more complex & less understood.
this is borderline propoganda…
science is as dogmatic today as it was in Galileo's, Darwin's, Tesla's, you name it's time. In practice it's probably better to be slower moving than to leap around between crazy hypotheses, but to call the science community open to challenge and change is a blatant lie - many people embedded in universities around the world are far more invested in protecting their published work than entertaining new ideas.
as for replicability, Houston, we have a problem… and it's not just in "soft" sciences:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3439-c1
https://www.nature.com/articles/483531aand there have been many more published studies showing similar problems, as well as forging peer reviews (which hardly seems worse than bouncing around inside the academic echo chamber anyway).
as for Freudian ideas no longer being valid, just ask his nephew Edward and everybody else following in his footsteps (e.g. Goebbels and the entire advertising industry) if psychoanalysis has no merit, bringing us full circle…
this is borderline propoganda…
If that's what you want to believe…You confuse the discipline of Science with fallible individuals who work in the field. People make mistakes. I outlined that distinction in what you term borderline propoganda.
Fraud, poor research design, desire for funding & promotion based on attracting research grants, institutional politics. lack of proper peer review, human error & mistakes - that can cause questionable results. But they are questionable - unlike a lot of theories on the web based only on flimsy beliefs.
That type of problem occurs in most fields of work - to do the least work for the greatest personal outcome. It's a very human problem, not confined to Science.
Choosing notable failures to back your bias ignores the vast majority of thorough research. Science develops through those failures.
A dogmatic approach would see no discussion of the problems! As you can quote reputable articles raising these issues - the process is working.
All scientists I know are hard working, poorly paid, but dedicated to their interesting research fields.Replication of research studies is a major (but expensive) way of verifying research results. If others don't reach the same conclusion when repeating the study - the original research is suspect!
There is a need for more replication. But like with most academic teaching, it's not sexy & usually won't get you promoted.Almost all research is based on previous research. A review of previous research papers is necessary to progress - so research is constantly being reviewed by other researchers.
Adequate & in-depth peer reviews by suitable & qualified reviewers is crucial to Scientific integrity.
A Masters research paper I was given to review (not a peer review, done under supervision of my Professor) - looked great, well written, research design looked appropriate, adequate sample size & data, good statistical analysis that supported the findings - which I repeated.
But I was a bit skeptical. After days it dawned on me that the research student's desire to prove the outcome reached (to support their own ideas) had corrupted the research.
The control & experimental groups were not kept separated, as was necessary. That's a hard thing to deduce from just reading a paper, & hard on the over-enthusiastic research student! But conducting of the experiment was flawed. I could understand their reason - but it wasn't Science. Masters denied.That's days of work to review 1 simple paper. No one has the recources to do that for all papers. Especially with funding cutbacks. So published papers are read by scientists - and questioned. That's the process. That problems are detected - it shows it works. But more work & vigilance is necessary, rather than throwing out Science.
Almost no one likes their ideas challenged, but that's what is required. Unfortunately there have been notable cases where people did not challenge researchers, because of their reputation. I presented a case study to my uni students to determine what questions should have been asked, that would have uncovered the incorrect conclusions. It can be very hard to identify errors in research design. It takes time & experience to understand what to look for.
So quoting a few cases where problems arose - is easy, doing the hard slog necessary to detect them is very hard - it's not perfect, but that shows the process works!
As for ideas developed by Freud & Jung being used in advertising & psychoanalysis - they use it because they think it works, it "justifies" the high billing for it, rather than it is scientifically Valid - an important distinction. There are a lot of psychologists employed in advertising, but I doubt they believe those discredited theories.
The mainstream news is written for morons to manufacture consent.
Did you even read the article, it summarises the key findings from an extensive study undertaken by psychologists to prove how reliable psychological research findings are… The findings are incredibly damning of psychological studies. Morons are the once who take things prima facie…
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.full
The same thing in a science mag
Ive enjoyed reading the comments more than I enjoyed reading the book. It's fascinating to see some of the comments
I especially enjoyed reading this comment, because it's very indicative of the passive-agressive debating style of the author in question.
It's the debating equivalent of someone posting "OMG worst day ever!" on social media with zero context or elaboration, then getting a kick out of people incorrectly trying to work out what you meant by the comment while doing your best to avoid giving any additional details out to keep the attention focused on yourself.
Jordan would be proud of you, I'm sure of it.
Wowsers, it's Sunday dude. Lighten up, life doesn't need whatever negative nonsense you've decided to target me with.
Seriously, I'm honoured that you've felt the need to find another comment of mine to reply to. Thankfully websites like this have a mute button. Take care!
@eskylidder: Hmm, yes, the text with which you have elected to grace said corner of the technology that some often verbosely allude to as the proverbial "World Wide Web" (or "interwebs" if one desires to employ language that may resonate somewhat with the youth or juniors of the species that is commonly known as homo sapiens - I hesitate to use "man" for fear that my intentions may be misconstrued by emotional members of the opposite sex - anyhow), is, in a word (or two if one intends to be precise in one's speech); truly fascinating.
Rule 1: OzBargain
Rule 2: Bikies
Rule 3: Comprehensive Insurance
…
Rule 4: OW price beat
Rule 2: Chocolate Bikies
fixed…
Rule 3: Dietitian for jv
If you're wondering what all this is about:-
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-d…
Triggered much? Why link to such a bitter character attack?
Anything remotely negative is always a bitter character attack when it comes to this guy. But apparently it's everyone else who's triggered…
Exactly. If it weren't for the fact that the trans activists made this guy into a free speech hero, who'd really care to read this pointless gruel? Sure there's some useful self-help stuff in there, clean your room and all that, but you could just listen to your mum for free.
The Emperor (sic) has no clothes, of course. "But, but, but", they splutter, "Those Social Justice Warriors…"
Nice source
😂 Women’s Weekly for leftists.
Love his YouTube videos and discussions. Been listening to this audiobook and it’s extremely boring, a lot of his conclusions are a huge stretch!
This book boring? You must have a short attention span.
Don't get me wrong - Peterson can be very long-winded and esoteric, boring as hell even, if you do not share soem particular fascination.But this particular book could hardly be a massive bestseller if it were boring.
And even if you are not persuaded, does he not make you think? That's good enough for me.Ah yes the classic stereotype of the person who thinks reading Jordan Peterson makes them a cultured intellectual
Actually, you're the boorish ones.
Something being popular or not popular doesn't have any meaning in the context of a singular persons enjoyment of a medium.
Personally, he didn't make me think. I found this book extremely shallow and in the context of many other books, lacking in any overall value.
Maybe it was listening to this book after subtle art, which was lot more entertaining (Voice made a huge difference)
I did like the underlying messages Peterson discusses, but at times felt like he was dragging it on like he’s trying to reach a certain word count.
Just not a book for me I guess.
WE ARE ALL LOBSTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
no he says be like lobsters… or was it eat more lobsters? been awhile since i read it, what does the bible say?
No lobsters for the Israelites.
Ah yes. Words to live by.
Negger, ponder this:
"Of the things that are in the waters, you may eat anything that has fins and scales.": Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9.
So you’re saying that we’re all lobsters, and that’s the reason why men get paid more than women.
All down to the size of the claw - the bigger the claw, it costs more😉
and that’s the reason why men get paid more than women.
except in tennis where women players get paid about 30% more per set played…
I found this a kind of a weird and boring read. I made it about 3/4 and gave up.
There's some Interesting concepts and the lessons are reasonable enough and basically all follow the rule of "You're responsible for your own life". But he goes on endlessly , what could be said in 2 pages is stretched to 20 pages of Jungian psycho-babble.
His interpretations of the bible are like a parody, its almost like he'll take a verse, swap every 2nd line , read it backwards, interpret it through a dream, then substitute every third noun with a modern meaning and at the end proudly claim he's discovered the "real" meaning of it all.
His hatred of anything remotely left wing is almost as comical, he literally thinks every Left leaning Uni student is taking us on a one way ticket to the Gulags.
I was looking forward to this book after hearing the hype, but I wont be bothering with anything else he writes.
Haven't read this book, but have had books influential for friends (at a particular moment in time) thrust in my hand to read - to help me.
Reading their book, it always told me more about the other than myself. They were disappointed in my appraisal of something so important to them, but reread the book & had to agree.Books like this, read at the right time, are often seen as important & possibly life changing for their insights. Read later, they can be obvious, contrived & disappointing. We change, move beyond the advice, but the book remains the same.
As in life, it's all about timing. So best read when it's the right time.
Exactly. I went and saw a shrink for work-related burnout a couple of years back. He listened to me for a minute and said: "well you can sit there and cry and I can lend you a sympathetic ear for the next fifty minutes, or we can set about finding you a new job. Can you bring in your resume?"
Completely obvious, but a worthwhile intervention at the time.
Often the obvious isn't obvious to the person at the time. An objective outsider can usually see things clearer.
So it resulted in a positive change?
A sales rep for a multinational came to see me for help. He was complaining about his boss. I could have sympathised, which would not have helped.
As I was also helping him in his approach to uni studies, I set him homework on his first session: Write down what the boss did that was harmful for the business, what he would do differently, and the effect that would have on the business. (Nothing groundbreaking there.)
He diligently did his homework, as I predicted he would. When he presented it the next week I told him I know nothing about his business, so refused to read it. This was not what he expected. (Doing the unexpected was always a good step towards change in the client. They took charge of their change.)
I asked - who should read it?? (He sent it to Head Office.) 2 weeks later he was the boss, the State Manager👍Simple solution - but he probably would not have thought he could be the boss, so would never have tried. By setting it as an objective task (with no anxiety associated with asking for the position) he achieved far more than he thought he was capable of. Having solved his own problem so effectively, gave him confidence in his new role.
@INFIDEL: Yep, it was the same with me. Fear of failure is a powerful thing. Who knows, maybe if I had drunk the Tony Robbins/Jordan Peterson etc kool-aid it might have done me some good. But you could sum it up in a paragraph, basically. If you want to be miserable your whole life, no one is going to stop you.
I agree. I got about 2/3 through and gave up. It goes all over the place and says nothing.
For people who are interested, I recommend just finding and reading the 12 rules online. Beyond the list of 12, he has nothing to say and frequently makes no sense whatsoever. Save yourself some time and skip this book.
If you are looking for a popular psychology read, try 'Thinking Fast and Slow'. Or some Malcolm Gladwell, Freakonomics, etc.
It goes all over the place and says nothing.
I had the same experience with that free Python ebook the other day.
Ha Ha Ha.
I'd also recommend Jonathan Haidt's, 'The Happiness Hypothesis'. Similar subject matter, but a more dense, and less dumbed down version. I find Peterson's way of expressing himself to be very airy and lacking in any real substance myself. So not my cup of tea. His understanding of evolutionary biology leaves a lot to be desired too.
This one is much better. Jordanetics: A Journey Into the Mind of Humanity's Greatest Thinker
Yeah … more a communicator than a thinker. I don't think Peterson is saying anything radically new.
He’s probably the most famous psycologist alive today… doesn’t
matter what those in academia think about him… psychology is not a ‘true science’ where the opinions of academics are more viable then everyone else…